9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

Steezie · Jun 18, 2008

joebudda said:
Once again I am not here to please you.

I wouldn't assume you were here for me, that would just be arrogance.

Look, Im gonna ask this one last time and then Im going to consider you a troll and move on.

What are the chemical signatures that are alleged to exist in WTC wreckage?

Either provide me with a straight answer in your own words or say "I dont know"

I dont care what answer you give, just give me a straight answer

joebudda · Jun 18, 2008

Steezie said:
Look, Im gonna ask this one last time and then Im going to consider you a troll and move on.

What are the chemical signatures that are alleged to exist in WTC wreckage?

Either provide me with a straight answer in your own words or say "I dont know"

I dont care what answer you give, just give me a straight answer

The paper is there for you to peer-review if you desire, I am no expert, as I have already stated, if you recall.

Steezie · Jun 18, 2008

joebudda said:
The paper is there for you to peer-review if you desire, I am no expert, as I have already stated, if you recall.

Im done with you, since you cant give me a straight answer there is no point in pursuing this with you any further

Btodd · Jun 18, 2008

joebudda said:
Btodd

This thread is about explosives, so I have been trying to stay on point. And the eyewitness I believe to be excellent evidence being it is coming from many sources.

But regarding 'thermate' the chemical signature was found in the debris along with deposits of molten metal that can't be explained any other way.
And Prof. Steven Jones has written a paper that is in the peer-review process right now.
Here it is if you desire to look and peer-review it for yourself. It is in PDF format.
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?

.

Thanks for all the non-answers to my questions, and the tacit admission that you have nothing better than the misrepresentations of a handful of people to evidence controlled demolitions. Please refrain from calling yourself a skeptic in the future.

And if you were truly trying to stay on topic as you claim, then you wouldn't discuss thermite. I think it's hilarious that you don't even seem to realize how blatantly dishonest (or completely oblivious) one has to be to put forth two contradictory ideas as if they were both true.

It's one or the other. You either believe in controlled demolitions, or the thermate hyptothesis. They are mutually exclusive, and this is more evidence of the psychology of your position.....you will choose any argument against the OV, simply because it's against the OV. Facts and logical consistency aren't much of a priority. Throw it in the air and see if it sticks. That's Truther 101.

Btodd

joebudda · Jun 18, 2008

Btodd said:
It's one or the other. You either believe in controlled demolitions, or the thermate hyptothesis. They are mutually exclusive,

I disagree, why are they mutually exclusive?
If there is evidence of both. Why couldn't both have been used?

joebudda · Jun 18, 2008

Steezie said:
Im done with you, since you cant give me a straight answer there is no point in pursuing this with you any further

I did answer, just not the answer you want apparently.

Btodd · Jun 18, 2008

joebudda said:
I disagree, why are they mutually exclusive?
There is evidence of both. Why couldn't both have been used?

For one thing, that's why Steven Jones started the thermate idea. How is it that Steven Jones' rebuttal of the controlled demolitions hypothesis is suddenly compatible with it?

How many unnecessary steps do you think the government used in this grand spectacle? Why limit it to controlled demolitions + thermate demolitions (which have never been done, nor shown to be possible)?

Why not explosives + thermate + high energy weapon + miniature nuke?

Every one of these ridiculous steps you add to the process are merely expressions of your futility in trying to hold to your original premise.....the Gub'ment did it. You keep having to justify the original fault by tacking on absurdity after absurdity.

At this point, if you think they're both (explosions and thermate) part of the plot, you would have to be positing a plot where planes were deliberately crashed into the towers (were the real passengers on them?), which had been wired with explosives (but in some new manner that remains undefined) without anyone noticing, but for good measure they also decided to try out a brand-new method which involves thermite, so there are three steps in which something can go wrong, or they can get caught. They're just wild and crazy guys, I guess. And we still forgot to plant WMD's in Iraq@!! Doh!

I'm still wondering where the loud, sequenced explosions that directly precede a demolition collapse were on 9/11. Unless you want to show me a controlled demolition in which they set off all the charges (really quiet, right?), went in the building and walked around for a little while, came back out and THEN the building fell.

Btodd

joebudda · Jun 18, 2008

Ridicule? Right on, I am good with ridicule.
I prefer the evidence to speak for itself.

Steezie · Jun 18, 2008

Btodd said:
For one thing, that's why Steven Jones started the thermate idea. How is it that Steven Jones' rebuttal of the controlled demolitions hypothesis is suddenly compatible with it?

How many unnecessary steps do you think the government used in this grand spectacle? Why limit it to controlled demolitions + thermate demolitions (which have never been done, nor shown to be possible)?

A big nail in the conspiracy coffin is their own evidence. What chemical evidence I have seen presented for the use of explosives is pretty non-damming. The best one, if I remember correctly, was someone claiming that "aluminum oxide and iron were found in the debris." Well....DUH! A large part of steel IS iron and aluminum is used extensively in the manufacture of steel as well as about five thousand other things in a skyscraper

joebudda · Jun 18, 2008

Lets not forget there was also deposits of molten steel in the debris Along with the sheered melted beams.

CCGirl · Jun 18, 2008

Thanks for the article, Joe......I slogged my way through it and it is the best explanation so far for what happened.

Btodd · Jun 18, 2008

Steezie said:
A big nail in the conspiracy coffin is their own evidence. What chemical evidence I have seen presented for the use of explosives is pretty non-damming. The best one, if I remember correctly, was someone claiming that "aluminum oxide and iron were found in the debris." Well....DUH! A large part of steel IS iron and aluminum is used extensively in the manufacture of steel as well as about five thousand other things in a skyscraper

The chemical evidence is poor indeed, and irrelevant.....because thermate has never been used in demolitions. It's a chemical reaction, which would be an extremely poor candidate for the demolition of a skyscraper. Also:

*How much would be required to bring down a skyscraper?
*How would a liquid chemical reaction be used to slice through a VERTICAL column, in precise order from top to bottom?
*How did they time the reaction?
*How did the setup survive the damage done by the planes and the fires?
*What tests has Steven Jones done on using thermate to bring down buildings? Where are the results?

You are correct about the aluminum. The entire facade of the WTC towers was aluminum. Joe has conveniently added information again by referencing 'molten steel', instead of molten metal. Unless someone tested it and confirmed it as steel, I would say Joe is again shaping things to support his pre-determined conclusion. Even if it were molten steel, I have yet to hear what that means.

In the photo with the 'molten metal', it appears that lying right next to that in the picture, and scattered among the beams right there in the photo, are many pieces of aluminum. Might this also explain the 'dripping molten metal' coming from the plane's impact hole, where the enormous fireball was? Nahh, that's too simple and realistic.

Sheared beams. Those photos were taken in the cleanup efforts, and there are photos of a worker cutting that very beam Joe posted with a torch....you can even see the torche's entry hole in the photo. What makes that even more humorous is that Joe was just arguing that the basement was blown up, yet here are beams right in that area that he's now using to make an entirely different argument.

Another example of contradictory arguments that are both embraced simply because they contradict the OV, without regard to factual accuracy or logical consistency.

Btodd

joebudda · Jun 18, 2008

All I am doing it letting the evidence speak for itself. And I have been persuaded by the evidence. If you are not persuaded and deny it being evidence, then deny it, more power to you.

Steezie · Jun 18, 2008

joebudda said:
Lets not forget there was also deposits of molten steel in the debris

Molten steel can stay molten for a long time if provided with sufficient insulation ( several hundred million tons of rubble will do that quite nicely )

Along with the sheered melted beams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0

phoenixgw · Jun 18, 2008

Btodd said:
And if you were truly trying to stay on topic as you claim, then you wouldn't discuss thermite. I think it's hilarious that you don't even seem to realize how blatantly dishonest (or completely oblivious) one has to be to put forth two contradictory ideas as if they were both true.
Btodd

http://journalof911studies.com/arti...pse Jones Thermite World Trade Center J24.pdf

"Thermite variants RDX & other commonly used incendiaries or explosives readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition and reach the desired temperatures." (p.22 of above link)

It is obvious that you and the other mockers of truth don't want to know the truth or take time to read expert analyses by professionals.

Joe Buddha has patiently laid out the reasons why the 9/11 Commission Report is unsatisfactory and all the mockers can do on this thread is stick their heads in the sand and talk out their butts. You know nothing but what the Mainstream Media tells you to believe.

You ignore that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it happened. You ignore the fact that the steel scrap of the buildings was shipped off to China even though a NJ firm tendered a lower bid. You ignore that the crater in NYC is blocked off to prevent further investigation. You ignore the 276 coincidences that happened near the days of 9/11.
http://www.nc911truth.org/911_Coincidences.html

If ignorance is bliss, you mockers must be in ecstasy or George Carlin's stash.

You ignore that Mossad agents were there to record the event (How did they know?) You ignore the consequences of the 9/11 Commission's faulty findings.

GWB declares a war on terror w/o consulting congress, which violates the constitution
The Patriot Act is set up which violates everyone's privacy and rights to due process under the law
Detention camps like Gitmo are set up to torture people of interest whether they're guilty or not.
Homeland Security wanders the streets abducting people and terrorizing disaster victims under martial law in New Orleans and Iowa.
The U.S. is going bankrupt funding this war while the Oil companies rake in record profits.
GWB invades Iraq for no good reason and now looks to Iran as the army's next target.
2200 tons of depleted uranium has been used in Iraq, making the area almost unlivable and dangerous to the soldiers.
Trillions of dollars are unaccounted for since 9/11. The part of the pentagon that was destroyed and WTC7 were accounting centers.
There are over 800 FEMA camps ready for detainees across the U.S.

The truth is America has 'souled out' it's own citizens by selling them a lie about a medieval A-Team that miraculously eluded all the fail safes and crashed 3 airplanes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Who benefits?--Big Oil and Israel.

If you mockers want to go back and read the document Joe Buddha provided, then maybe there can be intelligent discussion on this thread. Until then, enjoy your bliss of ignorance. God Bless Amerika! Gott mit uns!!

joebudda · Jun 18, 2008

Steezie said:
Molten steel can stay molten for a long time if provided with sufficient insulation ( several hundred million tons of rubble will do that quite nicely )

What would cause the pools of molten steel that we see?

Btodd · Jun 18, 2008

Steezie said:
Molten steel can stay molten for a long time if provided with sufficient insulation ( several hundred million tons of rubble will do that quite nicely )

Thank you for the video, Steezie. That's the nail in the coffin on any 'sheared beam' claim (not that anyone even makes a claim- it's just 'look at this sheared beam!'....and we're supposed to fill in the blank with a government conspiracy involving secret demolition techniques).

Btodd

Steezie · Jun 18, 2008

joebudda said:
What would cause the pools of molten steel that we see?

Video editing, the pixels along the left edge of the trail are in an almost perfect line (Which is impossible naturally). Can you show the video that this still was taken from?

Combine that with the fact that there are no structurally significant beams along the sides of the WTC, a single cut there would do next to nothing, except maybe break a window or two.

Btodd · Jun 18, 2008

phoenixgw said:
http://journalof911studies.com/arti...pse Jones Thermite World Trade Center J24.pdf

"Thermite variants RDX & other commonly used incendiaries or explosives readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition and reach the desired temperatures." (p.22 of above link)

It is obvious that you and the other mockers of truth don't want to know the truth or take time to read expert analyses by professionals.

That's Steven Jones, whom is a physicist, with no demolitions or structural engineering expertise whatsoever. The journal is not a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal, but one that Steven Jones created to give the appearance of peer review. The only peers who review it are 9/11 Truthers. Peers doesn't mean 'those who agree with you'.

Nor does his statement even address the problem of how his 'thermite variants' are able to cut sideways through vertical columns in rapid successsion to give the appearance of a gravity-driven top-down collapse. He simply says it, and he has a science degree.....hence, he's an expert?

Nice try, but this is the same type of propaganda tools that the Discovery Institute and Creationists use, as in 'Dr.' Kent Hovind. Fake schools and fake journals aren't a good way to gain credibility with anyone but the gullible. I would love to see him post his ideas in a real science journal, but I'll bet they wouldn't pass a casual reading. Adding political commentary to a 'science' paper doesn't send a very good message.

As for the rest of your tirade, I've heard all of that nonsense before. Thanks, but no thanks.

Btodd

joebudda · Jun 18, 2008

Steezie said:
Video editing, the pixels along the left edge of the trail are in an almost perfect line (Which is impossible naturally). Can you show the video that this still was taken from?

Combine that with the fact that there are no structurally significant beams along the sides of the WTC, a single cut there would do next to nothing, except maybe break a window or two.

It was a close up of the corner of the building prior to collapse.

9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

Steezie

Guest

Newbie

Steezie

Guest

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Steezie

Guest

Newbie

Resident Commie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Steezie

Guest

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Steezie

Guest

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency